Crime Blog

Holy Land Foundation defense attorneys challenge government evidence

Defense attorneys this week continued to hammer home the point to jurors that the government’s case alleging that five Holy Land organizers funneled money to the terrorist group Hamas is propped up with old and irrelevant evidence.

Noticeably absent, though, were substantial direct attacks by the defense on the content of most of that evidence, which bolsters the government’s theory that the Holy Land Foundation was formed in the late 1980s by Hamas higher-ups solely to gather money in the U.S. to benefit the Palestinian fight against Israel.

At times, exchanges between defense attorneys and the lead FBI case agent Lara Burns, who also holds a law degree, were near hostile. Usually, clashes occurred over interpretations of the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is never lurking too far beneath the surface of this trial.
Here are some highlights from Monday’s defense cross examination of Burns:

+ Nancy Hollander, attorney for former Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker, showed Burns a series of Burns’ own charts summarizing payments among Holy Land and various entities, including Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

When charts showed the transactions occurred before 1995 — the year the U.S. outlawed support of Hamas — Hollander took a pen and wrote “Hamas designated 1995″ at the bottom. She then had her versions of the charts entered into evidence, alongside the government’s charts.

+ A notable instance where the defense challenged the content, not just the age, of some of the government documents related to Baker’s trip to the Palestinian territories in 1991.

Prosecutors say that a report found in 1993 inside the Mississippi apartment of unindicted co-conspirator Abdelhaleem Ashqar refers to Baker’s trip and says he met with Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar. Baker has denied in sworn statements, meetings with the FBI and media interviews that he has ever had anything to do with Hamas.

“The brothers asked Dr. al-Zahar to open a center for studies and research and he approved that,” the Ashqar report says.

That, the government contends, matches Baker’s own account of the same meeting, found among other Holy Land documents at the now-defunct computer company InfoCom, formerly run by defendant Ghassan Elashi’s family across the street from Holy Land’s Richardson office.

“We discussed with Mr. Abu Khalid the issue of building a research organization,” Baker wrote in Arabic of his own trip.

Burns told jurors that Zahar is also known to by the nickname “Abu Khalid,” which in Arabic means “father of Khalid,” the name of Zahar’s son. The use of “abu” names by Arabic speakers is common.

Hollander, however, said that because her client put a “Mr.” before “Abu Khalid” indicates it’s someone’s last name, and that her client in his report refers to other people by their “abu” nickname without the “Mr.”

Plus, Hollander argued, the dates of her client’s trip on the Ashqar report and Baker’s own account do not match.

+ Sparks flew when Hollander asked Burns about one of the faces on the government’s huge chart labeled “Hamas Leaders In The 1990s.” She pointed to Jamil Hamami, listed as a Hamas leader in the West Bank.

At one point, he came to the U.S. as an official government guest, didn’t he? Hollander asked Burns. Only after he was kicked out of Hamas, Burns answered. You don’t have any direct knowledge of his status, Hollander said.

Actually, I’ve met him and talked to him about it, Burns countered.

After a beat, Hollander shot back: “So people can change.”

+ Hollander had Burns review for jurors more excerpts of the 1993 Philadelphia meeting, which the government says was a strategy session among Holy Land officials and other Hamas sympathizers in the American Palestinian community on how to keep the foundation functioning in the wake of the Oslo Peace Accords. That historic agreement was seen as a significant step toward there being peaceful existence between a Palestinian and Israeli state, which Hamas vehemently opposed. Hamas even now continues to call for the destruction of Israel.

At one point during the 1993 meeting, which the FBI bugged, jurors learned that Baker declared that “war is deception” with respect to how Holy Land should downplay its politics in order to maintain its legitimate status as a charity in the U.S.

However, Hollander Monday showed jurors another portion of the meeting transcript in which her client seems to contradict that sentiment.

“It is not my jot to attack the self-rule,” Baker says in the wiretap transcript. “This is my view. Amicable relationships must be maintained with all parties inside Palestine. This goes without saying, my brothers. We must not put any factional or partisan influence on the Foundation in America as it is the charitable arm of this or that. No. I say that this is wrong and we must act out of a charitable stand. We must act as an American organization which is registered in America and which cares for the interests of the Palestinian people. It doesn’t cater to the interests of a specific party. Our relationship with everyone must be good, regardless.”

+ Marlo Caddedu, attorney for Mufid Abdulqader, spent time chipping away at those damaging videos of her client, who appears in at least two fundraising skits playing a Hamas fighter “killing” a “Zionist” foe.

She stressed that some of those videos date back 20 years, and nearly all the most extreme ones were made before 1995, when it became illegal in the U.S. to give material support to Hamas.

+ Cadeddu at one point asked Burns about Israel’s “military” occupation of the Palestinian territories, but Burns said she understood that Israel had a “presence” there.

Cadeddu went back to her seat and retrieved a transcript of Burns’ testimony from last year’s trial, which ended in a hung jury, and points out that Burns had no problem admitting the occupation was a military one back then.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis told Cadeddu to move on.

+ At one point, Cadeddu hit on a key defense theme — the First Amendment — during her cross examination of Burns, regarding that 1995 designation date.

“That’s when it became illegal to support Hamas?” Caddedu asked. Yes, Burns answered. “But it didn’t become illegal to talk about Hamas, right?” Caddedu asked. Correct, the FBI agent answered.

“It’s never been illegal to talk about Hamas.”

“Correct.”

Top Picks

ArchivesAbout this blog

About this Blog

Criminal justice reporters, editors and invited guests provide news and analysis impacting Dallas-area police, courts, fire and other public safety issues and entities. Readers are encouraged to join the conversation.